Media

04/03/2014

Looking over my previous post about the demise of daily journalism, it would be easy to infer that I was somehow enjoying it. Just the opposite.

The daily news cycle was -- and is -- an effective way to stay informed. It's speedy enough to satisfy the informational needs we all have, but slow enough that it gives the journalist time to actually present a cogent, fact-checked and well-edited report to the public.

But that daily news cycle has been replaced -- by instant messages, tweets and other quick forms of updates. Some new organizations are actually uploading information from police scanners -- those notoriously inaccurate updates that go out over the air before anyone has time to know whether there's any truth to the report.

News today is high speed. And in a world driven by clicks and page views, there's tremendous pressure to put information up immediately and damn the consequences if something isn't right.

The clicks and pageviews are driving journalism, and the consumer -- the reader, the viewer -- is the worse for it. Getting the real story takes time. And time is the one thing that today's journalist doesn't have.

Those of us clicking on stories want to be entertained. So what do we gravitate to? Well, as humans we're drawn to controversy, to splashy headlines, quick reads and maybe an opinion column or two that underscores our already-decided political opinion.

We look at this stuff on our cellphones. Chances are that we're looking at Facebook, and what we're reading is information selected from our friends who are spoon-feeding us opinion pieces that we agree with. There's little chance, for example, that a Democrat will ever see a Facebook post from a conservative source.

Let's pause. After all, this isn't a screed against modern communications and media. Lightning-fast media consumption isn't going away, plus I consume as much of it as anyone. But it's still worth examining what we're doing to ourselves as we continue to do no more than dip a toe into the ocean of information.

An old friend with a background in daily journalism recently sent me her insight, and it's well worth repeating here:

"What we need in all forms of the media are life-long career journalists who are savvy enough to put stories in PERSPECTIVE because they’ve been around and they KNOW THE TOPICS, aren’t just parachuting in an grabbing the first talking head they find for a news quote. I have to believe that will come back in some form, because as cities, states and a country, we will flounder without them. Politics and money creep in at the expense of the environment, the public interest such as food stamps and health care and contraceptive rights, and even saving of lives in disaster. ( 'Good job, Brownie.') I hope it doesn’t take a national disaster for those journalists to re-emerge."

My sentiments exactly. The wish for a return to what we had sounds so damn quaint that I might as well distribute this article via Pony Express. But our speed has a cost. Ferreting out accurate stories takes time. And time is something that today's journalist doesn't have.

04/02/2014

I have this mental image of a guy who looks like Dick Cheney in a plush, walnut-lined meeting room, telling his people: "Gentlemen, what we have here is the demise of daily journalism."

This slow death is playing out locally. Word has leaked out from Santa Cruz County's own Ken Doctor, who runs the brilliant Newsonomics website and has reported today that the hedge fund ownership of Digital First Media -- owner of 75 daily newspapers including the Sentinel -- is contemplating selling off its newspapers as well as shuttering its experimental "Thunderdome" digital news hub.

That news comes on top of this week's purchase of the Good Times ownership by Metro newspapers,which essentially means a takeover of the Good Times by the smaller Santa Cruz Weekly.

Back to the Dick Cheney guy. What's at work here is that print journalism, along with online journalism, is morphing out of the daily news cycle and going into a 24/7 online and mobile service, punctuated perhaps by a weekly print edition -- complete with advertising support.

Daily newspapers are out in the cold. Sure, most of them do a fine job of tweeting and updating the news on their mobile sites -- but there's little revenue to be gained that way. Most revenue remains with the daily printed edition, but because of layoffs, cutbacks in salaries, training and hiring, the quality of the print product is declining. Fewer people read a daily newspaper. Not just in Santa Cruz, either. It's across the country, with the possible exception of The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal.

The daily cycle makes little sense anymore, when you think about it. Even the nightly news on TV isn't attracting a crowd. News consumers want the bulletins immediately, and if they want context, they'll turn to something more in depth than a daily can provide.

What's next? Things could play out in a number of ways. The owner of the Metro group, Dan Pulcrano, is the proud owner of the best local website URL -- SantaCruz.com. With the support of the weekly print edition, there's a lot of opportunity; the challenge is going to be whether The Metro has the resources to invest in experienced and talented journalists.

The Sentinel's outlook is murky. With much of the newspaper's production now in Chico, a sale would be complicated, with another outside investment group far more likely to take over than some local person or partnership. Admittedly, though, the asking price might be cheap -- no press, no building, no infrastructure. Essentially, you'd be buying the nameplate.

Even so, I wouldn't invest in a daily news operation. The Dick Cheney guy's words are ringing in my ears.

03/20/2014

This morning I made my usual journey through the day's news -- reaching for the iPad while still in bed, nosing my way through Google news, Politico, the latest stock prices and the like. Not an unusual morning for most of us -- us ADD news consumers who look over dozens and even scores of headlines in search of, what, maybe two articles that interest us enough to actually read all the way through.

I almost forgot. I also happened on a mildly amusing video of Jimmy Fallon (or was it Jimmy Kimmel?) imagining a phone call between Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin. And then there's the obligatory glance at Facebook to see what my lefty friends think is important today.

Such is the state of news consumption. One would think that this former print newspaper editor would be more in-depth, more thoughtful than that. One would imagine a retired former editor ambling to the curb to pick up his morning Wall Street Journal and New York Times.

No. Like much of our culture, I've joined the quick and dirty crowd, reaching out into the webosphere for whatever meanders in my direction. Disclosure: I do receive The Wall Street Journal online (as a retiree of the Santa Cruz Sentinel, a one-time member of the Dow Jones family, I get it gratis) and I actually pay for The New York Times.

But like most folks, I'm not a devotee of one publication or one news organization. Call it fear of commitment.

So it felt like a trip down memory lane yesterday when I went to lunch alone except for two print newspapers -- The Journal and the Sentinel. A depressing journey.

For those paying attention, the Sentinel is in the early stage of a "new look" -- brighter, more colorful and, chiefly, cheaper to produce. Like its many sister newspapers all over California, it's now produced elsewhere, with local reporters here and production people toiling away at desktop computers in Chico.

The less said about the new look the better. But at least it stilll has some good local content, especially considering the small staff now out trying to cover the news.

But even more depressing was something I saw in The Wall Street Journal: a misspelling in a headline. (Prairie without the first "i"). Yikes! Yes, I've committed such an error in my time, but I have never -- ever -- seen such a misstep in the Journal.

It's probably not fair to form a conclusion based on just two observations. But times are changing and the extra care that goes into preparing a good print publication is a luxury no longer possible in a fast-moving, "read-it now" and "see it now" world.

Ever hopeful of a white knight, some journalists say that it's Bezos's way of saving good journalism, arguing that the future of newspapers resides with civic-minded billionaires in place of the traditional civic-minded millionaires of a generation ago.

Skeptical observers say that Bezos has an agenda. After all, if his motive is philanthropic, why didn't his foundation make the purchase? Is he trying to increase his political influence for his own economic interest? Does owning the Post help Amazon in some particular way?

Like every question about the future of journalism, no one -- including Bezos -- can know how it will all shake out.

But it's worth remembering this: what happens at the Post -- or The New York Times or any other paper of national influence -- probably won't affect the average American newspaper. For community newspapers across the counry, there's no Bezos bailout on the horizon.

The problem your average newspaper faces actually doesn't involve content -- or at least, not directly. The problem is that the advertising revenue that newspapers once enjoyed has gone elsewhere: to Google, to Facebook and especially to Craig's List. Without that ad revenue, news staffs have been cut, never to return. And without adequate staffing, content suffers and the audience (once known as the readership) goes away.

07/25/2013

Public service is an honorable calling, but for some, it's more about their own ego and the ambitious pursuit of power.

How else can you explain Anthony Weiner, Elliot Spitzer and Mark Sanford?

Sanford fell into disgrace with his infamous romantic journey to Argentina. Spitzer -- Mr. Law Enforcement -- decided that prostitution laws didn't apply to him. And Weiner ... the less said, the better.

Yet all three think that the world can't do without their presence in public life. In fact, Congress has not been improved by having Sanford back. The people of South Carolina could easily find someone else to serve in his place. Spitzer is hardly the only qualified person for the job of New York City comptroller. (If his service there was so damn important, why did he instead run for governor back in 2006?) Or, as a spokesman for his chief opponent said: “It’s clearer and clearer that for Eliot Spitzer, this campaign is not about the needs and struggles of New York’s middle class – it’s all about Eliot Spitzer.”

And Weiner doesn't even have the modicum of taste to drop out of the race for mayor of New York. The city has done fine without him over the past couple of centuries, but he's arrogant enough to think that the city is in need of his services. It's not. He actually said this: "I want to bring my vision to the people of the city of New York. I hope they're willing to still continue to give me a second chance."

Why should they? Just so Weiner can add to his resume?

What's the lesson here? For voters, it's this: is someone running for office because they want to serve? Or is it because it satisfies their self interest? Those are questions worth asking.

07/19/2013

I think I would have been a great choice for the job of president of the University of California. I met Clark Kerr once, and I've interviewed most of the chancellors to serve at UC Santa Cruz. I attended at UC campus (Santa Barbara,) which is more than new UC president Janet Napolitano has done.

Alas, I don't know as many rich folks, and I'm not connected to various funding sources as the politically savvy Ms. Napolitano. On the other hand, I'd work for a hell of a lot less than her $570,000 yearly salary, and I wouldn't even ask for a free place to live.

Ms. Napolitano is probably a quick study, and maybe she's even read Clark Kerr's far-reaching Master Plan for Higher Education, the document that boosted the University of California into world-wide dominance. But don't expect such a document from her. After all, higher education isn't to be found on her resume.

When President John F. Kennedy named his brother, Bobby, as attorney general in 1961, people then questioned his lack of experience. JFK met it head on, saying: "I can't see that it's wrong to give him a little legal experience before he goes out to practice law."

That's why I'd be such a great UC president. Like Ms. Napolitano, I'd work hard at learning what higiher education is like. At a fraction of the cost.

07/18/2013

Those of us who think that Santa Cruz County has a water crisis are witnessing a frustrating political fight over a proposed desalination plant.

What's frustrating is that the two sides aren't fighting over the same thing. The pro-desal people see it this way: "We're worried that there won't be enough water and that when the next drought hits we'll be in a real fix."

But the anti-desal people would be happy not to have enough water. They won't say so, but it goes back to an old theory -- limit services and you limit growth.

Anti-desal folks really don't want any new supply of water. Not that there's even one available -- except desal. Just try proposing a new reservoir. (In fact, doing so wouldn't even do much good; the problem Santa Cruz has is that most of its water comes from collected runoff -- and if and when there's a serious drought there won't be enoughwater no matter how many dams you build.)

Desal opponents have done nothing but attack an environmental impact report on the desal project since it came out. Wouldn't you think that at least one person might say something like: "Hmmm. Maybe the report makes sense."

03/13/2013

I have never begun a piece of writing with such misgivings. (Yes, that's basically the opening line from Somerset Maugham's "The Razor's Edge," but it applies here.)

A year ago, I was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease. So far, the impact has been slight -- a stiff shoulder and a shaky hand. After years of making a living at a keyboard, I now find it bothersome to type with my right hand, and that, probably as much as anything, has kept me from writing more in this space -- or anywhere else, for that matter.

I've never been comfortable with columns about personal matters. Sure, I'm as egotistical as any journalist, but that need to tell my story doesn't really extend to those little intimate confessionals that mark so many of the newspaper columns that have grown so popular over the past 25 years.

Still, at least three people have convinced me that writing about this unfortunate, progressive disease might prove to be a worthwhile venture, if only as a way to document the disease as it worsens and takes hold. Jesus, I hope it doesn't, but you've got to face reality.

Two things seem to relieve the symptoms: working out and taking a drink. Fortunately, I like both. I'm on one medication, a drug called Azilect, which my doctor says has shown to slow the disease -- in one study, that is. Other studies haven't proved the effectiveness.

Azilect is lightweight stuff, or so one of my best friends says. My unfortunate pal is deep into the disease, and it's complicated by dementia, which occasionally accompanies Parkinson's. Of course I assumed upon receiving the diagnosis that I was headed to that sort of cloudy future, but my doc has urged me not to compare myself to any other patient. "Don't go there," he said.

Easier said than done. Still, there are scores of diseases that are worse than what I have and there are any number of people suffering far worse. Let's keep perspective. Complaining doesn't make much sense. You can go nuts worrying about the worst that can happen, or you can put it out of your mind. Linus of "Peanuts" fame said it best: "No problem is so big or so complicated that you can't run away from it."

That's the way I feel. That's why I'm reluctant to write about it. But because no one can tell me what the future holds, documenting the whole thing might be worthwhile.

03/06/2013

The tragedy of last week's shooting of two Santa Cruz police officers has resulted in an unprecedented level of community support, emotional outpouring and media coverage, but one aspect of the episode has gone unnoticed: the superior performance of local law enforcement that prevented the violence from escalating further.

The professionalism of the Santa Cruz Police Department and the other agencies involved -- the Sheriff's Office, the Highway Patrol, the Fire Department and others -- kept the situation from degenerating into an even bigger tragedy.

The man responsible, Jeremy Goulet, shot officers Butch Baker and Elizabeth Butler, but he was intent upon taking out additional people -- other officers and innocent passersby. He had stolen not only some police weapons, but also one of the officers' protectivc vests. He wanted to make a last stand. He was a mass slayer in the making.

Local police officiers put a stop to it without more violence. They did it thanks to a tactical response by cooperating law enforcement agencies. They did it thanks to a high level of training, work that goes unnoticed by the general public. They did it despite the emotion that must have been bubbling up inside them, knowing that two of their own had fallen. Mourning could come later. They had a job to do --- and they did it.

Goulet was on the move after the shooting. He had driven around town and was perhaps headed back to a location where he could have made a stand -- taking aim at more people. The SCPD and SCSO stopped him. And they did so without any more casualties.

The community already knows this: our law enforcement officers do a great job -- day in and day out -- of serving those of us who live here. But most of us don't realize the level of professionalism that they can call on when the worst happens.

The wounds to the Santa Cruz community are real. The wounds to local law enforcement are severe and won't be overcome anytime soon. But the biggest tribute to the memory of Officers Baker and Butler is that they were part of a law enforcement community that responded with professionalism, bravery and competence. There is no greater tribute.

02/20/2013

One of the great qualities of the best journalists is that they're not sure of anything. That's the main reason they get their butts out of their chair and actually go talk to somebody. My God, sometimes they even talk to somebody different from themselves, someone who views the world differently. They're interested in what others have to say and how the world looks from behind someone else's eyes.

Alas, today's journalists -- especially the biggest stars -- are increasingly sure of themselves and their own knowledge. Fox News and MSNBC are particularly known for hiring people straight out of the partisan political world: Chris Matthews, Karl Rove, Sarah Palin and Robert Gibbs. They're smart. They're argumentative. They take no prisoners. They get great ratings.

The latest to join the party is David Axelrod, famously a big part of President Barack Obama's political success, who has joined NBC News.

Washington Post columnist David Ignatius has taken notice, saying in the Washington Post's Post Partisan blog: "NBC boasted in its news release about how 'for nearly three decades Axelrod guided successful campaigns at every level on the ballot.' Once upon a time, that would have been a disqualification for a news organization."

These are people who are sure of themselves and of their opinions. (Of course, smart people who were sure of themselves and their opinions started the Vietnam War, the Iraq War and a few other misguided ventures.)

Don't expect Axelrod to innocently question either a Democrat or a Republican. He's damn sure of what he knows. It's the people -- like me -- who aren't smart enough to be sure of ourselves who used to ply their trade in journalism. People like me actually were interested in what others had to say -- especially when they saw the world differently. It was one of the basics of good journalism.

True, there are still those who play it that way, but they don't get the high ratings and don't get the huge number of page views. They're the ones who at the end of the day can be found at the grocery store or watering their lawn. The smart, opinionated media stars are more likely to be whisked away in their limo, on their way to exclusive fund-raisers. We're rewarding the smart people whose are sure of their opinions.

As Ignatius says "No wonder the American public increasingly mistrusts the news media. We are obliterating the line between the political players and the people who are supposed to act as commentators and referees."